Must we tolerate intolerance?

[Ryal Kane]

Yes. Freedom of speech means taking th bad with the good. If the speech is insiting illegal activity then it becomes a different story. But banning opposition outright sets a dangerous trend.

 

[IzzyPop]

If I walk in on you and see you with another guy, and in a fit of anger, shoot you, I am guilty of 2nd degree murder. If I right out a To Do list that says, "buy bullets, drive to Izzy's house, kill izzy" and follow through, I am guilty of 1st degree murder. If I am not looking where I'm going and get in an accident and you die, I'm guilty of manslaughter.

All are killing, but it is the intent upon which one is punished.
One who plans and kills a person fast with a bullet to the head will still get more time than someone that shoots (even if the person suffers more) out of anger or passion.

However, no one will argue that 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree murder is "thought crime."

Okay. I get what you are saying.

Hate crime is really hard to prove, but I was pretty shaken by Shepard's death, assuming that we had moved past that. After that incident, more were reported - like the guy that was beaten, had gasoline poured on him, and burned on a tire fire. I went to a memorial service, realizing that it could have been me. As i waited for the bus to go back home, some drunk guys in a car drove by, and one guy yelled, "You're the next Mathew Shephard."

I was amazed at how twisted one has to be to think that that's funny, and how ironic it was to go to a memorial, and have someone say that right outside of where it was held.

And I knew he was right - I could be the next Mathew Shepard, and with drunk guys in a car who outnumbered me, who's to say they won't stop and actually do the same?

If one spraypaints, "Jimmy loves Sally" on a Temple, or paints a Swastika (that brings up memories of the Holocaust), while both are vandalizing property, one's intent is to cause fear, while the other just show's disrespect of property. The message is very different.

When put in the light of the effect that the acts will have on others, I can see the difference. I had just never thought of hate crime in the same light as terrorism. Well spoken.

 

[NeTrips]

So I have been reading a bit on belief and one thing that keeps popping up it the books (and I am noticing here in E&M more than anywhere else) is that one of the major down falls of a tolerant society is the acceptance of the intolerant. I'm finding that I don't know whether or not to agree with them.

I hold that freedom of speech is essential to our democracy, but by allowing the intolerant to spew their misinformation, we allow certain groups to be less then equal. By allowing the intolerant we allow for the primacy of opinion over fact.

But if we do disallow hate speech, where do we draw the line?

What about hate crimes? Do the motivations for the crime make it any more heinous?

Any insights here? I find that debate helps me clarify my own thoughts and positions in some areas, so I cannot promise consistency on my end of it, but I can promise thought and reason.

Sounds as if you are intolerant of those who are intolerant. See where this is going?

 

[Peach81]

Sounds as if you are intolerant of those who are intolerant. See where this is going?

I can't believe I'm typing this, but I agree with NeTrips. To firmly believe in freedom of speech means to tolerate opinions that can literally turn your stomach. In my perfect world, the KKK, Fred Phelps, and Ann Coulter would be strung up by their ankles for the hate they publicly spew. But to do so and then to turn around and say we have "freedom of speech" is hypocritical. The only "line" that should be drawn when it comes to free speech is speaking of causing harm to a person or persons.

As for hate crimes, I think they should be done away with. Any time someone is attacked or intentionally killed can constitute as a hate crime. The motives for these crimes are inconsequential; they are equally heinous.

 

[IzzyPop]

Sounds as if you are intolerant of those who are intolerant. See where this is going?

This is why I am having a problem with it. It seems to be a contradiction.

 

[WatersMoon110]

Sounds as if you are intolerant of those who are intolerant. See where this is going?

I can't believe I'm typing this, but I agree with NeTrips. To firmly believe in freedom of speech means to tolerate opinions that can literally turn your stomach. In my perfect world, the KKK, Fred Phelps, and Ann Coulter would be strung up by their ankles for the hate they publicly spew. But to do so and then to turn around and say we have "freedom of speech" is hypocritical. The only "line" that should be drawn when it comes to free speech is speaking of causing harm to a person or persons.

I have to agree with NeTrips as well.

In order to be tolerant, we have to tolerate of those who aren't tolerant of us. It's a large part of what actually being tolerant is.

It's easy to tolerate those people who you like. But the entire point of tolerance is to allow people who you don't agree with (but aren't hurting anyone, of course) to believe and do as they like.

You tolerate someone else's crying baby. It doesn't mean you enjoy it, or approve of what the baby is doing. I think much the same can be said of the KKK, we might not like who they are or what they stand for, but have have to tolerate their legal behaviors.

 

[TheManeki]

Sounds as if you are intolerant of those who are intolerant. See where this is going?

For some reason I'm in a quoting mood today, so I'm going to quote from Fred Clark's blog Slacktivist http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2007/05/totalitarians_v.html

The whole essay's worth a read, if you have a few minutes.

About here, inevitably, someone will chime in with what they seem to think of as the trump card... Aha! they will say, so what you're saying is you're all for tolerance, except when it comes to people who are intolerant! Well, yeah. And also, duh. Antonyms are incompatible. Opposites are opposed. That's not a particularly noteworthy observation, so I've always been baffled as to why this bit of adolescent wordplay was regarded as meaningful.
...

Intolerance is, necessarily, totalitarian. So when I say I favor freedom -- whether freedom of conscience or of any other sort -- then, yes, what I'm really saying is that I'm all for freedom except for when it comes to people who want to impose totalitarianism. This exception does not, as the JV sophists would have it, negate the claim that "I'm all for freedom." It simply demonstrates that, unlike them, I'm aware of what words like "free" and "tolerant" -- and their opposites -- actually mean.

 

[chaz345]

I hold that freedom of speech is essential to our democracy, but by allowing the intolerant to spew their misinformation, we allow certain groups to be less then equal. By allowing the intolerant we allow for the primacy of opinion over fact.

The problem is in definition of terms. If intolerance and misinformation could be 100% objectively defined in a way that applies to all cases then the idea of further restricting speech may become workable, but until then, any such restrictions pose a grave danger to the foundational principles of the country.

But if we do disallow hate speech, where do we draw the line?

It is a line that is constantly being defined by the courts in cases where it must be decided if someone's speech caused another to act in a way that caused real harm.

What about hate crimes? Do the motivations for the crime make it any more heinous?

Been there, done that, had that conversation. In short it is my opinion that the idea behind hate crimes is a good one but that the potential for misuse of them, combined with the fact that someone comitting such a crime already has punishments to face makes them not such a good idea.

 

[chaz345]

To my knowledge, that's all hate crime legislation really is. I don't think it creates new crimes, but it allows enhanced penalties if it can be proven that the crime was motivated out of animus towards racial, religious, ethnic, or other defined groups.

But even that, IMO, goes too far. The standard should be if the crime is intended to create fear in , or send some other message to other members of the group that the victim belongs to.

 

[chaz345]

While I support the various freedoms of people, inciting hatred is one exception. My justification? It ultimately infringes on the free will and the legal freedoms of at least one person. I oppose the right for Christians to incite hatred against a homosexuals, for Atheists against theists, for you against me, etc.

This stems from my one moral code: infringment of free will is morally wrong. Illegalising hatred ultimately upholds this code, albiet a little paradoxically.

You differ significantly from the US legal system. Inciting hatred is in fact totally legal. Inciting violence is where one gets into legal trouble. And that is how it should be unless there comes a time when terms can be better defined. If the standard were inciting hatred, then in theory, someone like Michael Moore or Cindy Sheehan could be prosecuted for inciting hatred towards the President.

 

[chaz345]

It's easy to tolerate those people who you like. But the entire point of tolerance is to allow people who you don't agree with (but aren't hurting anyone, of course) to believe and do as they like.

Seems to me that Christmakes a very similar point in Matthew 5

43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor[h] and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies[i] and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.